Which WWIIcountry is in the frontier of the aerospace?

The Germans were the leaders in Rocketry.

However the first Jet engine flown was by a Frenchman named Conada in 1909 (I think). He was an experimeter not an avaitor so when it did start flying he put it down in a landing better described as a crash and destroyed the air craft.

In WWII I think the Germans were ahead in the engine department but behind in the metalurgy required to make reliable jets.

wmaxt

I agree in this absolutely, wmaxt.
By the way, there would be some barriers before space first (while the A-4 got pretty close to the frontier of space, knocking on it´s doors). First off there is the problem with breaking the sound barrier in a maned plane. I would vote either for the british Miles M.52 or the german DFS 346 to break Mach 1 in level flight.

The British were the lead in efficient engine design in World War 2 for the Nene alone. Even if it wasn't until April 1945 that it was bench-tested at 5000 lbs it still beat anything the Germans had on power save for this, 7,700 lbs thrust engine you mention.
Even then the German engine had no chance of being fitted any aircraft as it was too big and remarkably inefficient. The F.9 has quite a lot to do with this discussion if we're stretching it beyond World War 2 but from WW2 development. The F.9 was one of the most widely used jet engines in the 50s, it was developed from the F.2 not any German engine design.

There's no denying that the Germans were leaders in rocketry.

The Germans were also ahead in their understanding of fluid dynamics and swept wing technology. That and their advancement in rocketry made them the clear leaders in aerospace.

Rocketry didn't develop into an aerospace project though. It became a space project.

The swept wings I do give to the Germans but the swept wing only really takes any effect around Mach 1. I personally think the jet engine was the most influential thing on modern aerospace technology.

There is one aerodynamic advance which the British were investigating during the war and that is the flying tail which was being flown in 1942 on I think was a Miles Master testbed. I mention this as the USA claimed credit for this advance many years later as it enabled them to break the sound barrier many years later.
I do admit though that we didn't put it on an operational aircraft.

An aside. There have been a number of comments about the lack of machine tools in the UK during the war which I can certainly believe. In 1973 I was being trained as an Articifer in the Royal Navy and we were using lathes ect which were clearly markd as 'Wartime tolarances only'. When asked, we were told that these were only used for training or on land based military equipment.
When you hear how unreliable british armour was in WW2 you can believe it.

An interesting fact that I knew nothing about.

Good to meet a fellow sailor.

"Rocketry didn't develop into an aerospace project though. "



Yeah, I guess the rocket powered X plane projects were a big waste of time and money that added little useful knowledge to the field of aerospace engineering. (The X-1, for instance was the first aircraft to break the sound barrier in controlled, level flight in 1947)

The early X projects borrowed heavily from German knowledge and added immensely to our knowledge in the aerospace field.

"I personally think the jet engine was the most influential thing on modern aerospace technology."

Well, perhaps the British had "better" jet engines but the Germans and Americans did have jet engines. No one was utilizing swept wing technology except the Germans. No one else had anything resembling a operational guidance system for rockets which the Germans had. Finally, German rocket motors weren't just better but miles ahead of anyone else.

A word about rocketry. One of the pioneers that is often forgotten is Robert Goddard:

Robert H. Goddard began his rocket experiments in 1915 with solid propellants but his calculations showed he could achieve much better performance using liquid propellants. He therefore switched to liquid propellants in 1921. He originally thought of pumps to pump in the propellants into the combustion chamber but he initially did not have success with these. He therefore sought to test a basic liquid propellant system to see if the principle worked, and if possible to achieve a flight.

Finally, on January 20, 1926, he successfully tested a liquid propellant motor in a static test in which the motor produced more thrust than the rocket's weight. He next set out to adapt the motor to a flight rocket. He wanted to cover the rocket with a streamlined cover and to include a parachute for the rocket's recovery but soon realized these features would add too much weight to the rocket and that it might not fly.

Goddard therefore left off the covering and parachute. On the day of the launch, Goddard was assisted by his wife, Esther, as the official photographer; Percy Roope, an Assistant Physics Professor at Clark University where Goddard also taught Physics; and Henry Sachs, a machinist at the University who had helped make the rocket.

Goddard and Sachs loaded the rocket while Sachs lighted the torch and ignited the pyrotechnic igniter. Goddard controlled the valves. At first, when the combustion was started, the rocket would not rise because the thrust was lower than the weight of the rocket. Then, when it exceeded the weight and reached an estimated 18 lbs, the rocket first climbed a few inches then shot up but but was not that stable. (In addition to proving that liquid fuel rockets can fly, Goddard also realized that his "nose-drive" design was inherently unstable and in his rockets the motor was placed at the base of the rocket.)

The historic flight of March 16, 1926 was not reported immediately. In fact it was not known to the general public for a decade. Since 1917, Goddard's experiments had been funded by the Smithsonian Institution though he did not wish the results to be publicized until he had achieved more substantial results. Thus, contrary to popular belief, Goddard's flight of March 16, 1926 did not immediately open up the way to the development of modern rocketry.

Rather, other rocket theorists and experimenters independently developed their own rockets without detailed knowledge of Goddard's work. In 1931, the German experimenter Johannes Winkler successfully flew a liquid-propellant rocket which was then believed to have been the first to fly, but this misconception was later corrected.

The development of modern liquid fuel rocketry was therefore the result of the work of several experimenters, many working independently of each other, though Goddard was afterwards recognized as technically the first to develop such systems.

Goddard's name was well known to the rocket experimenters of the 1920's-40's but due to his secretive nature and reluctance to share his work, which was very advanced for the times, his impact upon main developments was limited.
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/dsh/artifacts/RM-RHG1926.htm

The rocket didn't develop the aeronautical world, no. The only reason the X-1 had a rocket was because the jet engine wasn't powerful enough. The breaking of the sound barrier was little but an achievement to prove that we could do it. The technology that was required was already there, the only lacking thing was a jet engine powerful enough.

Rocket powered planes are pointless and a waste of money. They have little control and are only for speed purposes. What's the point? The X-15 is to never fly again because all that can be done has been done, and little has developed from it.

The Americans did actually have a limited idea on the swept wings but very little, and little testing but it was still there. Even then, the swept wing is only the revolution it was around Mach 1. The jet engine keeps on pushing the aeronautical world further and further. Aircraft would be no where near what they are today without the development of the jet.

I agree in the swept back wing. It takes postively effect at transsonic speeds, only. However, in the timeframe up to 1945, the germans developed more than this in the aerodynamic department:

deltawings
area rule
leading edge slots
wing boundary layers
bell shaped lift distibution for a stable flying wing
negative swept wing
variable wing geometry
basic understanding of faster than the speed of sound flight

This is making them the leaders in aerospace aerodynamics technology in my mind. The powerplant department can be divided by rocketry (germans, the US had an advantage with Goddart in an earlier timeframe) and jet engines (debatable).If you argue, that the Nene alone will make the British leading, than you miss my point. The Nene was kind of pinnacle of centrifugal flow design. Not a bad configuration, but limited. The BMW-018 axial engine was planned for the powerplant for bombers (Ju-287 to be more concrete), there was well probability to fit it under it´s wings. However it did not came to this. You know it. The F-9 is a POST WAR axial design, which benefitted from german experiances (esspecially the combustion chambers and turbine blade design). While it is true that it is based on the F-2, it was impossible with the british technology to field reliable axial jet engines with enough poweroutput during ww2. Unlike the germans. They did it. Think of the Jumo-004, imagine it would lead to more advanced engines based on it´s design in the 50´s. This is no argument, as is the argumant of the F-9. On the other side the DB-007 and Jumo-004 E are the most modern jet engines of ww2. Technologically more advanced than even the Nene or Dervent-V. They just had not the same poweroutput.
The british centrifugal flow engines are excellent in the timeframe till wars end, but these designs are not as advanced as axial designs. By the way, no british jet engine, centrifugal or not, was nearly produced in the numbers of the german axial engines during ww2. And the german design was far beyond british capabilities (afterburner, dual flow, fan)You can easily show a race if needed:
W-2B/early Dervents -BMW-003/Jumo-004B up to 2000 lbs of thrust
D.H. Ghost -DB-007 up to 3000 lbs of thrust
Dervent V -Jumo-004 E/H up to 4000 lbs of thrust
Nene -(Jumo-022) up to 6000 lbs of trhust
-BMW-018 up to 8000 lbs of thust
and because you need more, ()=never left it´s drawing board:
(DB-016) up to 28.600 lbs of thrust
And keep in mind that post war designs benefitted from excamination of german axial jet engine designs and construction charts of planned designs. It is interesting that british often refer the RB-39 of 1945 as the worlds first jet engine with diagonal (axial AND centrifugal) compressor (which actually was the german HeS-011) and dual flow (which was indeed
the german DB-007). You can argue that the german designs are not reliable or that they faced big problems to hit even 3000 lbs, not to speak of 5000 lbs. All agreed, but they are under no circumstances BEHIND the british jet engine development during ww2. Indeed they have been more innovative in many ways.
Sources to Rolls Royce Nene:
www.tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/List of engine:
quote:
"...the "R.B. 41 Nene", which was first bench tested in november 1944 well making over 4000 lbs of thrust..."
Compare also the soviet development of Nene copies: RD 45 (based on UK sold Nene) and VK-1 (improved by means of better heat resistent materials) show a significant thrust difference. The development of Nene 1-10 surely not decreased fuel consumption, only.
I will source the net for further sources, if needed. Additional articles supporting that the Nene in 1944 did not made (but was capable to) 5000 lbs of thrust:
G. Norman, A comprehensive analysis of soviet post war jet engines up to the mid 50´s, in: L.H. Behrens, Probleme zur frühen Strahltriebwerkentwicklung, AVA (Stuttgart 1972), page 312-387.

P. le Goyet, Évolution de l´aviation entre 1939 et 1945, in: Revue d´histoire de la deuxieme guerre mondiale, Vol. 73 (Paris 1969), passim.

D. Richards/H.S.George Saunders, Royal Air Force 1939-1945, Vol. III (London 1953), page 56f.

I will agree with you there. The Germans were quite influential on modern day jet designs and you can still see the influence in many aircraft today. The problem is that most of these designs were so far ahead of what they were able to produce that it would not have been possible during WW2.

As for the engines. I will say the German concept was quite advanced but the lack of metals they required made them behind the British and the US. Had the Germans had the proper metals they could have built some great engines and the 262 may have been more capable if it had had engines built with better metals hence not having a 10 hour life span.

Glider said:

As well as the engines where we are ahead in Europe, we should be adding the wings. I think I am right in saying that most of the international joint projects the UK have the design lead in wing design.

For military applications we should also add Ejector seats. Even the US Navy use our seats.

Click to expand...

No. The NACA was the world leader in airfoil design work. Unfortunately for the Allies, until the mid 1930's the fruits of this research were made public and utilized by virtually every nation. A book of aifoils shapes and the wind tunnel results of dynamic testing were published every year and made available at a very low cost.

Airfoil design really came down to the number of aero-engineers doing research and the windtunnels they had to work with. Only the USA had high atmosphere pressurized tunnels to do sub-scale research. In the 20 atmosphere tunnel a 1/20th scale airfoil facing a 20 mph free stream airflow gave the same results as a full scale model facing a 400 mph airflow in a 1 atmosphere tunnel - excepting mach effects. This tunnel, which began operation in the very late 1920's or early 1930's was used to develop most of the wing airfoils, and many of the prop airfoils, used by WWII aircraft.

Tables such as this:



with data such as this:



were made available to the world by the USA during the 1920's through the mid 1930's in the interest of advancing the world knowlege of flight. The wings of the Spitfire, FW190, Bf109, and many other planes all derived from NACA published data. Later the exhaust from this tunnel was used to drive first an 11" and later a 24" high speed tunnel. Some of that data was made public as well but much of it was kept secret as WWII approached.

In March 1936 the USA completed its 8 foot high speed wind tunnel, capable of free-stream airflows of up to 575 mph:



As you can see it was massive. Similarly massive was the 19 foot 2.5 atmosphere high-pressure tunnel which began operation in 1939:



These tunnels required a huge investment that only the USA was willing to make. And the giant 8,000 HP electric motors required to power them were exclusive to the USA, deriving from the locamotive industry. No other nation had windtunnels anything like this.

It should be noted that while research from about 1936 on was kept secret, the British were not excluded from access to the research results and British research requests were often granted, especially after the US entered the war.

=S=

Lunatic

The British developed the Delta Wing. In fact, the first flight of a delta wing aircraft was made by Britain not long after the war. That design became the Vulcan.

And you're missing my point, the F.9 was developed from the F.2. The MetroVic F.2 being the first British axial-flow engine, bench tested in 1941.

plan_D said:

The British developed the Delta Wing. In fact, the first flight of a delta wing aircraft was made by Britain not long after the war. That design became the Vulcan.

Click to expand...

How would class the Me163?

Swept wing!

http://jnpassieux.chez.tiscali.fr/images/Me163_2.jpg



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5e/Vulcan.xh558.abingdon.750pix.jpg

That picture is of the wonderful Vulcan, a delta-wing bomber.

To RG
Sorry for any confusion. I was thinking of the modern era where there is no doubt that British Wings are generally used in most of the international developments in Europe.
The latest airbus has British engines, wings and landing gear. As for the pre war, I agree with your statement but in the post war development of aerodynamics and other technical advances the sharing of information became a one way street and it wasn't from the USA to the UK.
I don't blame or accuse the American People, it was the good old politics of business that got in the way to the detriment of both sides.
I also recognise that without the Marshall Plan all of Europe would have been economically stuffed. That must be the single most generous act ever.

I agree, the Marshall plan was the single most generous act by any nation in history.

It bothers me sometimes when I see people (mostly British - you know who you are) berate the USA for not having entered the war against Germany earlier. What they fail to understand is that Wilson tried to avoid WWII by a similar plan after WWI, but Britain and France would have none of it and insisted on reperations. The way the USA felt was that after bailing the Allied powers out of WWI we were ignored as to how the peace would be managed - and that caused WWII.

Anyway - don't get me started on how the EU is exporting unemployment through their subsidized Airbus... we been down that one before

=S=

Lunatic

hey now wait a minute there RG........

firstly the Marshall plan wasn't simply you warm, kind hearted americans trying to help their fellow man, it was just as much to stop us falling to communism, it is not the single most generous act ever at all, more an attempt to keep some airbases in Europe open to you...........

and what do you mean you "bailed us out" in WWI?? your joining of the war made little impact to be honest, far less than you are implying, and as for you "feeling ignored" in the peace disscussions after WWI and that leading to WWII, well that's really pissed me off!! Wilson was there at the peace talks, he was one of the big three, how exactly are you feeling left out?? YOU WERE THERE!! then you decide to set up the league of nations, then it wasn't approved in america, it was the american people's fault that you didn't join!! then you have the absolute nerve to claim that if you were at the peace talks, which you were, you and you alone could have prevented WWII, that's complete shit and you know it...............

and the walls street crash, the fault of you americans might i point out RG, was just as much a cause of WWII than anything else...........